Just consider the following: there are some people who say that the Buddha taught nihilism. Does that mean that the Buddha himself was a nihilist? Of course not... it's just these people who have a nihilist view of the teachings, even when they claim themselves to not be nihilists. That kind view is very subtle... but still quite significant. It's a part of what causes the dukkha. I think it's exactly this sort of thing that the Buddha taught about the wrong views, and also about what the right view would entail.

It should be really obvious to anyone who practices anyway, that a jhana always end sometimes... or to put it more accurately, they haven't yet encountered a jhana that is permanent... or else they wouldn't be going back to the sitting, secluding themselves, etc. There's no way to not realize this, unless you're really delusional about it. It doesn't really matter what kind of explanation you give it... it's still all a sign of impermanence. It's due to dependent origination... the moments have nothing to do with it.

"Moments" don't really bother me, though... I've argued very strongly against "flux" somewhere on this forum before. (Anicca might describe flux, but that doesn't mean the anicca is a flux in itself.) That doesn't mean that my opinion is changing between these two... it's just that when I think I see someone is attaching his own views to either one of those... I'll try to say something about it. Neither of those two has anything to do with the Dhamma, and therefore aren't necessary for practice. Neither of those will give you any insight about the view-clinging, anyway.

I believe myself to be a follower of suttas rather than later literatures (without criticizing them). But when I read the Buddha's words about anicca I find his anicca to be anicca of all sorts (coarse to momentariness). If understood and directly seen I don't think it can be called a "ditthi" or a mere conceptual fiction of momentariness. It is what actually is. Actually the other anicca that are coarser than momentariness are fabrications and can lead to conceptualized anicca which is still good object of contemplation.

SamKR wrote:I believe myself to be a follower of suttas rather than later literatures (without criticizing them). But when I read the Buddha's words about anicca I find his anicca to be anicca of all sorts (coarse to momentariness). If understood and directly seen I don't think it can be called a "ditthi" or a mere conceptual fiction of momentariness. It is what actually is. Actually the other anicca that are coarser than momentariness are fabrications and can lead to conceptualized anicca which is still good object of contemplation.

Have you actually, carefully read through this whole thread?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

SamKR wrote:I believe myself to be a follower of suttas rather than later literatures (without criticizing them). But when I read the Buddha's words about anicca I find his anicca to be anicca of all sorts (coarse to momentariness). If understood and directly seen I don't think it can be called a "ditthi" or a mere conceptual fiction of momentariness. It is what actually is. Actually the other anicca that are coarser than momentariness are fabrications and can lead to conceptualized anicca which is still good object of contemplation.

Have you actually, carefully read through this whole thread?

No. But I read the first post and scanned through most of the pages. I cannot actually read all 17 pages currently. Did I miss anything very important?

chownah wrote:Concerning matter it seems that the current wisdom in particle physics is that in fact all matter is so composed.

Haven't most particles been around since shortly after the big bang?

No, according to physics. I think the momentariness that physics implies may be even more momentary than what many people who experience dissolution and momentariness believe.Many quantum physicists (real physicists, not "quantum crackpots") even imply that physical existence is actually empty of any substance.

Yes. Lots of stuff. If you are going bring this thread to life again, it might help to know what it is that you are breathing life into.

Ok. I may read it when I have time but not sure. But I thought instead of creating a new thread, adding stuff to already existing thread would be a good idea. I thought addressing only the first post is also not a bad idea.

To make this specific post on-topic I want to stress that the statement "there is only momentariness" is a view, and the statement that "there is no momentariness" is also a view. But when someone sees directly all kinds of anicca (including momentariness), and that conforms to (or at least does not contradict) the Buddha's words in the suttas, then that seeing no longer remains a mere view -- it becomes vipassana endowed with right view.

SamKR wrote:To make this specific post on-topic I want to stress that the statement "there is only momentariness" is a view, and the statement that "there is no momentariness" is also a view. But when someone sees directly all kinds of anicca (including momentariness), and that conforms to (or at least does not contradict) the Buddha's words in the suttas, then that seeing no longer remains a mere view -- it becomes vipassana endowed with right view.

It's for each of us to discern if what we are directly perceiving or inferring on the basis of direct perception is valid or invalid, useful or not. If one thinks the idea of momentariness is a valid representation of their own experiential cognitive processes, and this aids in the development of disenchantment and dispassion, then it's useful.

I stumbled across some talks by Venerable Analayo the other day on the Arahant and the 4 noble truths and in one of those talks he said that the conception of impermanence in the early discourses was one of flow as opposed to momentariness. I wish I knew the exact talk but here's the series if anyone is interested:

"'Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

"'Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This is exactly what I understand by momentariness; having no better word to describe it. It does not stand still even for a moment.Thanks for this quote, which seems to be quoted by the Buddha himself.

Last edited by SamKR on Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SamKR wrote:To make this specific post on-topic I want to stress that the statement "there is only momentariness" is a view, and the statement that "there is no momentariness" is also a view. But when someone sees directly all kinds of anicca (including momentariness), and that conforms to (or at least does not contradict) the Buddha's words in the suttas, then that seeing no longer remains a mere view -- it becomes vipassana endowed with right view.

It's for each of us to discern if what we are directly perceiving or inferring on the basis of direct perception is valid or invalid, useful or not. If one thinks the idea of momentariness is a valid representation of their own experiential cognitive processes, and this aids in the development of disenchantment and dispassion, then it's useful.

This has been a very illuminating discussion on the subject of commentarial notions vs suttic notions and I'd like to read more.

And what did you see illuminated?

As someone who is not very familiar with the commentaries, there was a lot. Maybe it wasn't illumination as much as it was spotlights being haphazardly pointed here and there by a third-rate lighting company across the darkness of the commentarial dance floor.

This has been a very illuminating discussion on the subject of commentarial notions vs suttic notions and I'd like to read more.

And what did you see illuminated?

As someone who is not very familiar with the commentaries, there was a lot. Maybe it wasn't illumination as much as it was spotlights being haphazardly pointed here and there by a third-rate lighting company across the darkness of the commentarial dance floor.

The problem with the commentaries is that is so little of it in actual translation, and most criticisms of the commentaries are based upon not much. But do we jettison the old commentaries and substitute our own personal commentaries, commentaries of modern scholars of the suttas?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:The problem with the commentaries is that is so little of it in actual translation, and most criticisms of the commentaries are based upon not much. But do we jettison the old commentaries and substitute our own personal commentaries, commentaries of modern scholars of the suttas?

I wouldn't think of jettisoning them — some of the commentaries can be helpful and are even considered authoritative by sutta-centric teachers such as Ajahn Brahm. I think the complaints are that some people put them up on the same pedestal as the Nikayas, to the point of not questioning them when they introduce new doctrinal concepts that find little support in the suttas.

And why isn't Bhikkhu Bodhi translating the commentaries? He should translate every single Pali text in existence, I say.

tiltbillings wrote:The problem with the commentaries is that is so little of it in actual translation, and most criticisms of the commentaries are based upon not much. But do we jettison the old commentaries and substitute our own personal commentaries, commentaries of modern scholars of the suttas?

I wouldn't think of jettisoning them — some of the commentaries can be helpful and are even considered authoritative by sutta-centric teachers such as Ajahn Brahm. I think the complaints are that some people put them up on the same pedestal as the Nikayas, to the point of not questioning them when they introduce new doctrinal concepts that find little support in the suttas.

And why isn't Bhikkhu Bodhi translating the commentaries? He should translate every single Pali text in existence, I say.

What is wrong that bhikkhu. He needs to get cracking on that right now!!! The commentaries are commentaries, and they can be wrong, or miss things.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12